1152018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintAUBUS375..docx

1/15/2018 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUBUS375.14.1?sections=ch0
8,ch08intro,sec8.1,sec8.2,sec8.3,sec8.4,ch08summary&content=
all&clientToken=087… 1/19
Chapter 8
Transfer of Training
Lisa F. Young/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Explain the framework for training transfer.
Describe the accountability for transfer of training.
Summarize the barriers to transfer.
Understand how the learning organization supports
transfer.
While Mark Twain once said, "Everybody talks
about the weather, but nobody
does anything about it," the same could be said
about training transfer:
"Everybody talks about training transfer, but nobody
does anything about it."
—Anonymous

1/15/2018 Print
Introduction
As earlyas 1957 James Mosél, a professor of
psychology at George Washington University
and the founding director of the university's
industrial psychology
program, observed that training oftenseemed to make
little or no difference in job behavior (Broad,
2005; Mosél, 1957). Since that time,training
transfer
(Kirkpatrick's level 3)—the degree to which trainees
demonstrate new behaviors by effectively
applying to the job the KSAs gained in a
training context—has
been what Dennis Coates (2008), the CEO of
Performance Support Systems, calls the Holy Grailof
workplacetraining programs. In fact, more than half a
century
later, two separate longitudinal research studies
that aggregated individual studies of training
transfer estimated that still as little as 10 to
20% of the knowledge
or skills taught in training programs is
effectively transferred to the workplace
(Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003; Van
Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008).
As this chapter will discuss, training transfer not
only depends on the trainee's willingness and
ability, but also on an organizational climate
that encourages

transfer—both tactically and strategically. The importance
of the organizational climate is seen,for
example, in a learning organization (Senge,
1990), an
organization that, through sharing and dialogue,
promotes positive training transfer. This chapter
will also discuss whether supervisors, trainees, or
trainers are
responsible for the transfer of training (Broad,
2005; Kopp, 2006).
1/15/2018 Print
There are key dimensions linked to the transfer
of training including trainee characteristics,
the training design, and the work environment itself.
8.1 A Framework for Training Transfer
As Figure 8.1 shows, Baldwin and Ford (1988)
�irstillustrated the process of training transfer by
showing how, in addition to learning (level 2)
from the training,
training transfer was linked to threefactors or
dimensions, namely: trainee characteristics, training
design, and work environment. The premise here is
that each
factor contributes to the success of training
transfer and therefore to workplaceperformance.
Let us break down each factor.

Figure 8.1: Training transfer model
Source: Adapted from Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J.
K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review
and directions for
future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.
Trainee Characteristics
Trainee characteristics include how willing and able
the trainee is to apply the training.
Therefore, although otherfactors will in�luence
whether the training is
transferred, transfer depends in no small part on
the states of ability and willingness, as
Table 8.1 summarizes.
The desired posttraining state is one in which
the trainee is able and willing to apply
the new learning to the job. As Chapter 2
discussed,speci�ic leadership
styles, per Hersey and Blanchard's situational
leadershiptheory, can in�luenceor act upon a
follower's willingness and ability (Daft, 2014;
Hersey & Blanchard,
1977). For example, with a willing and able (R4)
trainee, the transfer is voluntary,and following
training, a supervisor might merely monitor
the trainee to
ensure that workplacebarriers are limited.
Table 8.1: Trainee ability and willingness to
transfer
Trainee type Ability Willingness Transfer potential

R1 – – None
R2 – + Low; stimulated
R3 + – Low; stimulated
R4 + + High; voluntary
For a trainee who remained not able but willing
(R2) following a training, a supervisor might
spend more time explaining and clarifying the
training to the
trainee. Doing so might uncover not only a
need for additional training, but also perhaps a
learning style or disability issuethe employer needs
to accommodate.
For example, in the United Kingdom, new legislation
makes all workplaces dyslexia-friendly
workplaces (Dyslexia Action, n.d.).
Trainees who are able but not willing (R3) to apply
the new learning to the workplacemay need an
attitudinalintervention; in thesecases the
supervisor
interveneswith the trainee to address aspects of
self-ef�icacy, commitment, or interpersonal skills
(James, 1890; Noe, 2012). The goal of these
interventions with
R2 and R3 trainees is for the supervisor to
stimulate the transfer that does not happen
voluntarily (Broad, 2000; Broad, 2005).
Did You Know? Transfer of Learning Versus
Transfer of Training
Semantically, although someassert that the terms

transfer of learning and transfer of training
are synonymous (Cormier & Hagman, 1987),
sometimes distinctions are made. One distinction
is when the focus is on cognition and
knowledge acquisition—underscoring that not all
that is
learned is observable. For example, when a
new customer service agent tries out the newly
memorized sales script on a caller, the
term transfer
of learning may be more appropriate. When thereis
a focus on the transfer of particular motor
skills and outcome-based behavior, such as when
an employee from a cable company is trying
for the �irsttime to hook up a DVR to a
television, then transfer of training would be
used.
1/15/2018 Print
Finally, if trainees routinely leave the training
programs unable and unwilling (R1) to apply
the new learning, this outcome suggests a
systemic problem;
perhaps management should review recruiting
practices with the human resources department
(Alagaraja, 2012; Blanchard & Thacker, 2010).
Training Design

Training design is the dimensionof the transfer
framework that refers to factors built into
the training program to increase the chances
that transfer of training
will occur (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Ford,
2014; Noe, 2012; Werner & DeSimone,
2011). Two particular theories of transfer have
implications for training design:
theory of identical elements and cognitive theory,
�irstproposed by Edward Thorndikein 1928.
Theory of Identical Elements
The theory of identical elements uses the idea that
the amount of transfer between the familiar
situation and the unfamiliar one is determined
by the number of
elements that the two situations have in common
(Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901). That is,
transfer of training is enhanced when what
trainees learnin the
training session matches what they will be doing on
the job (Orata, 2013; Thorndike& Woodworth,
1901). In his experiment to underscore
the importance of
identical elements, Thorndikehad participants judge
the area of rectangles, and then he tested
participants on the related task of estimating
the areasof circles
and triangles. Transfer was assessed by the degree to
which learning skill A (estimating the area of
squares) in�luenced skill B (estimating the
area of circles or
triangles).Thorndikefound little evidence of transfer
and, from this �inding, concluded that "transfer of a
skill was directly related to the similarity

between two
situations" (Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901, p.
15).
As a result, transfer is based on making
the training environment similar to the job
environment; this is known as near transfer—
metaphorically, the transfer
distance between the training environment and the
application to the job environment (Ford,
2014; Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Wan,
2013). An example of near
transfer would be a training for a department
store cashier in which new employees train on
a cash register that matches the registers the
department actually
uses.
An extension of the theory of identical elements is
the concept of stimulus generalization, which
emphasizes the transfer of general principles
and
maintenance of skills. This concept is known as
far transfer, the application of learned
behavior, content knowledge, concepts, or skills
in a situation that is
dissimilar to the original learning context (Ford,
2014; Holton & Baldwin, 2003). Suppose
that a trainee had learned from a workshop to
use con�lict-handling
skills not only at work, but also at home
with his spouse; this situation would be an
example of far transfer. Table 8.2 gives
someeveryday examples of near and
far transfer.

Table 8.2: Examples of near and far transfer
Near Far
Transfer from using one type of coffee mug to
another
type of mug
Transfer from drinking hot coffee using a mug to
drinking hot coffee using a thermos
(rule: do not burn yourself)
Transfer from using one shuttle bus to another
Transfer from reading the shuttle bus schedule to
reading an airline schedule
Transfer from using a knifeand fork to using a
different
size knifeand fork
Transfer from using a knifeand fork to using
chopsticks
Source: Adapted from Svinicki, M. D. (2004).
Learning and motivation in the postsecondary
classroom. New York: Wiley.
If we consider near and far transfers as transfer
outcomes, then the processes of transfer linked to
near and far are known as low-road transfer
and high-road
transfer (Doyle, McDonald, & Leberman, 2012;
Perkins & Salomon, 1988; Salomon &
Perkins, 1989). Speci�ically, low-road transfer,
which facilitates near
transfer, occurs when the context is so

familiar or perceptually similar (Ford, 2014;
Svinicki, 2004) to what the trainee already
knows that a re�lexive or
automatic triggering of transfer occurs without
conscious contemplation; this unconscious competence
is known as automaticity (Bargh, 2013).
For example, a
trainee hiredas a stockroom forklift operator
who has experience driving Caterpillar™
forklifts would most likely have a low-road
near transfer, even though the
hiring company uses Komatsu™ brand forklifts.
In high-road transfer, linked to far transfer, the
trainee must consciously draw on previous
knowledge, skills, or attitudes. The trainee
now applies conscious
competence of previous KSAs to perceptually
different, but conceptually similar, contexts (Ford,
2014; Perkins & Salomon, 1988; Svinicki,
2004). An example of
high-road far transfer is a new marketing department
employee drawing on the concepts of game
theory learned in college to analyze the
competition and the
interactions between manufacturers and retailers
(Chatterjee & Samuelson, 2013).
HRD in Practice: High-Road, Far Transfer
Justin Moore is the CEO of Axcient, a rapidly
growing cloud services provider. Moore, now
31, is also a former star of the youth
chess circuit.
Moore does not play much competitively anymore,
but even so, the kinds of thinking learned
from his days as a chess prodigy have deeply

informed the way he runs a successfulstart-up. In a
sense, Moore does still play chess every
day—by running Axcient.
"Of course, it's a business commonplace to
recommend forethought. But, in chess, the
metaphor is literalized. You're constantlylooking
two,
three, four moves ahead," explains Moore. "If
you do this move, what's the countermove?
What are all the countermoves? And then, for all
of
those, what are all of my potential countermoves?
Chess is constantlyteaching you to thinkabout
what comes next, and what comes after that,
1/15/2018 Print
and what the repercussions could be." In a chess
game your mind is constantlyrunning permutations
of decision trees. In a business your mind
should be doing the same.
A chess match is a war of attrition. If a
soccer match is egregiously lopsided at
halftime, the game still progresses. But, if
White accidentally loses
his queen a few moves into the game, it is
likely he will resign. A properly matched
chess game is oftenfought to the point

that only a few pawns,
pieces, and the opposing kings remain—abare-board
state known as endgame. The entirety of a
chess game is all a prelude to
endgame.
"Chess is about getting to endgame," says
Moore. "What happens between the start and
then doesn't necessarily matter. You could
lose more
pieces or a more valuable piece, and at the
end of the day, if you capture the opponent's
king,you win the game."
Pattern recognition. Playing chess teaches you to
recognize patterns: the tempting bishop sacri�ice
that actually led you into a trap, the queen
swap that looked favorable but prevented you from
castling. You play;you learn. Moore tells a
storyabout how pattern recognition helped
his
business. In 2011 Moore and his team were trying to
improve customer satisfaction. They worked from
the assumption that one metric in
particular—case backlog—was the best predictor of
customer satisfaction. It seemed reasonable to
assume that if you had low or zero backlog,
your customers would be happy. "It turned out
we were wrong," says Moore. After 3 months
of wandering through the weeds, Moore's
team
realized that a better predictor of customer
satisfaction was the time it took to respond to
a customer request, combined with frequency of
updates.

A greatchess player has a deep awareness of
each piece's role on the board. A bishop
has different abilities than a knight has, and its
powers are
expanded or limited by a board's pawn
structure. In someways chess is a laboratory
for human resources problems. "Youhave to
understand
the strengths and weaknesses of the team, of
your employees," says Moore. "Youhave to
understand that the pawn has its role, and
it's a very
important one, just as important as the queen, rook,
or bishop. Every piece is critical, and
the only way to win is to leverage all those
pieces' skill
sets together."
Source: Zax, D. (2013, February 19). Six strategy
lessons from a former chess prodigy who's
now a CEO. Fast Company. Retrieved from
http://www.fastcompany.com/3005989/innovation-agents/6-
strategy-lessons-former-chess-prodigy-whos-now-ceo
(http://www.fastcompany.com/3005989/innovation-agents/6-
strategy-lessons-former-chess-prodigy-whos-now-ceo)
Consider This
1. How did Moore draw on the pattern recognition
in chess to solve his customer service
issue?
2. In what ways did the game of chess
condition Moore to be proactive versus
reactive?
3. What was the signi�icance of Moore's
example of differentiating between soccer and

chess?
Cognitive Theory of Transfer
The cognitive theory of transfer is based on
trainees' ability to retrieve, manage, and deploy
learned capabilities. For training design, the
richer the connections
between the skill and real-world knowledge, the
better the chance of retrieval, and therefore,
the better the likelihood of transfer (Baldwin &
Ford, 1988; Noe,
2012; Stolovitch& Keeps, 2011). Speci�ically,
transfer is more probable if the trainees can
see the potential applications of the training
content to their jobs; this
idea is consistent with adult-learning principles set forth by
Malcolm Knowles (Ha�ler, 2011; Knowles, 1973):
Adults bring life experiences and knowledge to
learning experiences.
Adults are goal oriented.
Adults are relevancy oriented.
Adults are practical.
As it relates to the cognitive methods of
knowledge recall, the late educational
psychologist Robert Gagné's classic nine events
of instruction (Gagné, 1965) is still
used today (Gagné, Wager, Golas, & Keller,
2005; Romiszowski, 2013) in instructional
design.
Table 8.3 summarizes how—after gaining the
trainee's attention (for example, level 1, reaction)
and ensuring that the trainee is aware of

the training objectives
—stimulating recall of prerequisite learning is
reinforcedby subsequent events that ultimately
lead to enhanced retention and transfer; learning
processes
include semantic encoding (learning in context),
opportunities for reinforcement, and providing cues to
assist in retrieval. As discussed in Chapter 2,
cues can
include job aids, which can enhance transfer. Job
aids can be used during actual performance of
tasks; they give information that helps the
trainee know what
actions and decisions a speci�ic task requires
(Stolovitch & Keeps, 2011; Willmore, 2006).
Table 8.3: Gagné's nine events of instruction
Instructional event Relation to learning process
1. Gaining attention Reception of patterns of neural
impulses
2. Informing learner of the objective Activating a
process of executive control
3. Stimulating recall of the prerequisite
knowledge
Retrieval of prior memory to working
memory
http://www.fastcompany.com/3005989/innovation-agents/6-
strategy-lessons-former-chess-prodigy-whos-now-ceo

1/15/2018 Print
The organizational environment not only has to have an
actual climate for training transfer,
but the transfer-friendly environment must also be
perceived by the employees.
4. Presenting the stimulus material Emphasizing
features for selective
perception
5. Providing learning guidance Semantic encoding; cues
for retrieval
6. Eliciting the performance Activating response
organization
7. Providing feedback about performance Establishing
reinforcement
8. Assessing performance Activating retrieval; making
reinforcement
possible
9. Enhancing retention and transfer Providing cues
and strategies for retrieval
Source: Adapted from Gagné, R. M. (1965). The
conditions of learning. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Self-Directed Learning Part of training design should

include aspects of self-management, designing
the training to use a trainee's propensity
and level for
self-direction (Broad, 2005; Guglielmino, 2001;
Noe, 2012; Rothwell & Sensenig, 1999; Saks,
Haccoun, & Belcourt, 2010). Self-directed
learning is the level of
initiative in the trainee's motivation to acquire
the new ability and is linked to a
trainee's self-ef�icacy (Bijker, Van der Klink, &
Boshuizen, 2010). Self-directed
trainees are empowered to take more responsibility in
their learning endeavors; as a result, self-
directed trainees are more apt to transfer learning, in
terms of
both knowledge and skill,from one situation to another
(Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Guglielmino, 2001;
Knowles et al., 2012). As described in Chapter
5, self-
direction does not always equate to self-teaching;
for example, for purposes of reinforcing
transfer, a self-directed trainee may choose to
be shown again how to
do a task rather than self-teaching.
Work Environment
Training transfer has also been linked to the
trainees' perceptions about the work environment
(E). As discussed earlier and depicted here in
Figure 8.2, this idea
is consistent with the performance formula, whereby
not only must E remain positive (+), but also
perceptions about E must remain positive
(+), as well.

For transfer to occur, the trainee must perceive
that the work environment has a climate for
transfer. A climate for training transfer
includes factors such as
level of supervisor support, opportunities to
practice trained tasks, and openness to change
(Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Blume, Ford,
Baldwin, & Huang, 2010;
Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993; Salas,
Tannenbaum, Cohen, & Latham, 2013). Holton,
Bates, and Ruona (2000) found speci�ic
variables that in�luenced the transfer
climate; theseinclude supervisor support or
sanctions, resistance or openness to change, levels
of coaching or mentoring, and positive or
negative personal
outcomes (Holton, Bates, & Ruona, 2000). Peer
support, too, was seen as a determinant of
trainee transfer (Broad, 2000; Broad, 2005;
Burke & Hutchins, 2008;
Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Holton et al., 2000;
Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993), although not
any stronger than supervisor support (Van den
Bossche, Segers, & Jansen,
2010). Table 8.4 lists frequencies of transfer
categories.
Figure 8.2: Environment includes trainee perceptions
Source: Adapted from Blanchard, P. N., &
Thacker, J. W. (2010). Effective training:
Systems, strategies,and
practices (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Table 8.4: Frequencies of transfer categories

Transfer factor Frequencey (%)
1/15/2018 Print
Transfer in�luences
Learner characteristics
Trainer characteristics
Design and development
Work environment
3 (2%)
8 (4%)
104 (46%)
112 (49%)
Timeperiod
Before
During
After
Not time bound
28 (12%)
70 (31%)
74 (32%)
56 (25%)
Stakeholder support

Trainee
Trainer
Supervisor
Peer
Organization
53 (23%)
109 (48%)
57 (25%)
2 (1%)
7 (3%)
Source: Burke & Hutchins, 2008.
Note. Emergent factors are in italics. Transfer
in�luences were coded as 1 = learner
characteristics, 2 = trainer
characteristics, 3 = design and development, 4 =
not time bound; stakeholder support was coded
as 1 = trainee, 2 =
trainer, 3 = supervisor, 4 = peer, 5 =
organization.
Foodfor Thought: Apply Transfer of Training
Practice somekey ideasin transfer of training with
Baylor University's E-Learning Module:
http://business.baylor.edu/knue/3345TOT
(http://business.baylor.edu/knue/3345TOT) .
Consider This
1. Using the cognitive theory of transfer, what
would be sometechniques that would
enhance transfer?
2. What would be examples of peer support in
training transfer?

3. What is meant by the term intellectual
capital as it relates to training transfer?
Trainees are also more motivated to transfer training
when it is part of pursuing desirable
outcomes or rewards (or to avoid undesirable
outcomes). The value
trainees place on such outcomes is known as
valence, and the trainee's belief that he or
she will actually receive that outcome or reward
when the performance
expectation is met is known as instrumentality.
This is part of the expectancy process theory
of motivation (Vroom & Yetton, 1973)
that in�luences certain
decisions that employees will make—in this case, transfer
of the training.
Positive outcomes include not only extrinsic rewards
such as salary increases and bonuses, but also
intrinsic rewards such as opportunities for
advancement and
recognition (Broad, 2005; Holton & Baldwin,
2003; Holton et al., 2000, Vroom &
Yetton, 1973).
On the Quality of Transfer: Negative and Positive
Not all transfer is equal, and when managing
transfer, we need to consider two states:
Positive transfer. Near and far transfer enables what is
known as positive transfer. Positive transfer is
when workplaceperformance improves due to
the
training. Positive transfer is more likely when

the trainee's prior learning facilitates the trainee's
acquisition of the new learning or skills.
For example, a
trainee's prior experience in learning an older
inventory package expedites his or her learning
procedures for using the newer package.
This concept is
consistent with Knowles's principles of adultlearning, where
prior experience informs new learning (Knowles,
1973).
Negative transfer. When the trainee performance
worsens following the training, this is considered
negative transfer. Speci�ically, negative transfer
can
happen when a trainee's prior learning interferes
with the acquisition of the new learning or
skills. For example, userswho switch from a
BlackBerry
phone, with its physical keyboard, to an iPhone,
with its virtual keyboard, �indit more dif�icult to
type and text than userswho are switching from a
Samsung phone, which also has a virtual
keyboard. This idea is consistent with Hedberg's (1981)
assertion that thereare times, in fact, when
adults have
to unlearn ideasbefore new learning can occur.
Training transfer is not just a binary proposition.
That is, we do not just evaluate whether or
not transfer occurred (zerotransfer is when
we observe no change
in the trainee's KSAs). Speci�ically, we also must be
mindful that new training may negatively affect
the trainee, and the resulting performance not
only may fail to
improve but, in fact, may become worse than it

was before the training.
http://business.baylor.edu/knue/3345TOT
1/15/2018 Print
Although therehas been no consensus about who is
ultimately accountable for the transfer
of training (or, "where the transfer buck stops"),
many in the �ield agree that a shared
accountability exists between the trainer, trainee,
and direct manager—the so-called
training trinity.
8.2 Accountability for Training Transfer
At the end of the (training) day, who is responsible
for level 3's training transfer? Is it the trainer,
the trainee, or the trainee's supervisor?
While thereis no clear HRD-policy answer (Burke
& Hutchins, 2008), many training scholars
and practitioners have suggested a transfer trinity,
or triad,
consisting of the trainer, the trainee, and the
manager (Blume et al., 2010; Haskell, 2001;
Rummler & Brache, 1990); each one plays a
role to ensure transfer
success. (See Figure 8.3.) Others propose that
management is ultimately responsible for
ensuring transfer (Esque & McCausland, 1997),
and still others place

more on the trainer's shoulders (Broad & Newstrom,
1992; Broad, 2005; Kopp, 2006). Here,
trainers not only lead their training toward
voluntary transfer, but
also stimulate the transfer after the training event,
including having trainers partner with supervisors
and managers to support trainees in their new
learning.
Figure 8.3: Training transfer trinity
Source: Adapted from Coates, D. (2008). Enhance
the transfer of training. Alexandria, VA: ASTD,
p. 7.
Using diabetes education and training as a
backdrop, Kopp (2006) speci�ically suggested
that the trainer be primarily accountable for
training transfer; he
argued that trainers should take ownershipof level 3,
so that a distinction could be made
between effective trainers and ineffective ones.
He viewed the trainer
as individually necessary and jointly suf�icient in
training transfer. That is, although the trainer
alone is not suf�icient for (and does not
guarantee) transfer, the
trainer was fundamentally necessary—andit follows,
therefore, that the trainer cannot be absolved of
primary accountability. Burke and Saks (2009)
seek
commonality rather than a single-minded construct;
they conclude that many stakeholders can (and
should) be held accountable for transfer and
the transfer-
related activities that they can affect.

The Who, What, and When of Transfer
Broad's and Newstrom's (1992) extensive research on
training transfer included assembling a panel
of experts and—using a Delphi method in
which the
rankings from the experts are collated—the perceptions
of roles in transfer strategies where given a
�inal rank in every phase of transfer:
before, during, and after
(see Table 8.5). (Also see the Foodfor Thought
feature box titled "Transfer Strategies," which
provides a link to a summary of Broad
and Newstrom's work.) One
of their �indings was that the most frequentlyused roles in
transfer differed from the most in�luential roles in
transfer during a given phase of
transfer. For
example, although the panel thought the manager
had the most in�luential role before transfer
(�irst), managers were actually ranked �ifth in
frequency of use
before transfer.
Table 8.5: Frequency versus in�luence
Ranking—mostfrequentlyused roles in transfer
Before During After
Trainer (facilitator) 2 1 7
1/15/2018 Print

Manager 5 6 9
Learner 8 3 4
Ranking—mostin�luential roles in transfer
Before During After
Trainer (facilitator) 2 4 8
Manager 1 9 3
Learner 7 5 6
Source: Adapted from Broad, M., & Newstrom, J.
(1992). Transfer of training. Philadelphia, PA:
Perseus Books.
For example, whereas the trainer was most frequently
used in the total transfer process, the manager
was thought to be the most in�luential in
the transfer
process, even given the manager's limited role during
the training. This �inding was consistent with Burke
and Hutchins's (2008) more recent research,
which
con�irmed that the role of trainers (48%) was
more in�luential than the role of supervisors
(25%) during training transfer. In their study,
Burke and Hutchins
selected training professionals and practitioners who

were members of a largemetropolitan chapter of
ASTD and asked about the suggested best
practices for
enhancing and bolstering training transfer.
Table 8.6 outlines recommended strategies and action
items for each transfer agent.
Table 8.6: Actions items of transfer agents
Transfer
agent
Timeperiod
Before During After
Manager Communicate that learning is a prime
organizational objective.
Encourage full participation by ensuring trainee's
job is covered during the learning program.
Provide opportunities to practice
and demonstrate new skills.
Trainer Provide clear description and precourse
information to trainee and manager.
Ensure good delivery. Provide follow-up consultation to
maximize application.
Trainee Clear up dailyactivities prior to the
learning program.
Participate actively and ask questions. Discuss

performance objectives
and action plans with manager.
Source: Broad, 2000; Broad & Newstrom,
1992; Broad, 2005; Burke & Hutchins,
2008.
Foodfor Thought: Transfer Strategies
Listen to the Center for Corporate and Professional
Development describe transfer strategies in every
phase of transfer (before, during, and
after): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf2DoL4TDF4
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf2DoL4TDF4) .
Consider This
1. How formalized should the responsibilities of
manager, trainer, and trainee be prior to the
training?
2. Is therea case to be made that the process
of transfer should be organic and not hard
coded? Why or why not?
3. Would the roles during transfer vary when it
comes to informal or incidental learning? Explain
your reasoning.
Manager or supervisor support for applying new
skills has consistently been found to be a
key factor affecting the success of the transfer
process (Broad, 2000;
Broad, 2005; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993).
Speci�ically, a manager's support and positive
attitudes toward the trainee may result in
opportunities to practice
newly learned skills, whereas negative attitudes
toward the trainee may cause the manager to

assign unchallenging tasksthat fail to allow
the employee to
practice newly learned skills.
In sum, a trainee's manager may provide either
more or fewer opportunities to perform newly
learned skills (Broad & Newstrom, 1992;
Ford, 2014; Ha�ler, 2011;
Holton & Baldwin, 2003; Noe, 2012). Table
8.7 summarizes transfer support responsibility
among the training transfer triad of manager,
trainer, or trainee.
Table 8.7: Support per transfer agent
Support method Implementing agent
Establish explicit objectives Manager
Repetition of learning Trainee
Evaluation and feedback Manager
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf2DoL4TDF4
1/15/2018 Print
Use multiple examples Trainee
Trainee selection Manager

Supervisory support Manager
Cultivation of meaning in material Trainer and
trainee
Source: Adapted from Cresswell, S. (2006).
Practitioner guide to transfer of learning
and training. Albany, NY: Rockefeller College of
Public Affairs & Policy; Haskell, R. E.
(2001).
Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and
reasoning. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
1/15/2018 Print
One way to frame training transfer is to view it
through a change management lens. Using
Lewin's force-�ield analysis, we can see why transfer
does or does not occur, speci�ically as a
function of driving forces and restraining forces.
8.3 Barriers to Training Transfer
Many potential barriers affect training transfer,
and thesebarriers are more likely to be
situational, not dispositional; that is, thesebarriers
affect the trainee but
are not caused by the individual trainee (Broad &
Newstrom, 1992; Burke & Hutchins, 2008;
Noe, 2012). As part of their extensive research,
Broad and

Newstrom (1992) not only surveyed trainers and trainees
from a range of organizations to rank barriers
to training transfer, they also evaluated a
collection of
organizational case studies—including their own at Saturn
Corporation, an automaker subsidiaryof General
Motors, that described how transfer was obstructed
or enhanced (see Table 8.8).
Table 8.8: Barriers to training transfer
Rank: Highest to
lowest
Organizational barrier
1 Lack of reinforcement on the job
2 Interference in the work environment
3 Nonsupportive organizational structure
4 Trainees view the training as impractical
5 Trainees view the training as irrelevant
6 Trainees' discomfort with change
7 Trainees' separationfrom trainer after training
8 Poor training design and/or delivery
9 Peer pressure against change
Source: Broad, M., & Newstrom, J. (1992).
Transfer of training. Philadelphia, PA: Perseus

Books. Reprinted with
permission from the authors.
No factor was found to be more impactful than
lack of reinforcement on the job, ranked the
highest as an organizational barrier.
Speci�ically, negative or
inadequate responses from supervisors can diminish
the trainee's attempts at applying new skills to
the job (Ford, 2014; Morrison, Ross, &
Kalman, 2012; Wan,
2013. The second-ranked barrier, interference in
the workenvironment, can occur when the
trainee lacksthe necessary equipment or
information to apply the
new learning; for example, an employee tries to use
new videoconferencing but the remote link is
slow or intermittently drops the line. Also,
the supervisor's
opposition to, or rejection of, the use of new
skills or failure to provide the trainee
with opportunities to apply the new skills or
knowledge is an example of a
nonsupportive organizational structure, the third-ranked
barrier to transfer (Bates & Davis, 2010;
Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993).
According to Sales Performance International
(2014), 55% of respondents listed a lack of
posttraining implementation as one of the
top weaknesses of sales
training; when tested 5 weeks after training,
participants in the sales training forgot half of
what was taught. In sum, the top threebarriers
were lack of
reinforcement, interference in the work environment,

and a nonsupportive organization (Broad &
Newstrom, 1992; Park, 2008).
Transfer of Training as Change Management
Transfer of training means changing employee
behavior through the new training (that is, level
3); as a result, the potential exists for
trainees to resist that
change. Not surprisingly, resistance to change can be
seen literally or symptomatically as all or
part of otherbarriers presented—for example, peer
pressure
against change, trainees' discomfort with change,
not seeing the training as relevant or
practical (Broad & Newstrom,1992).
Consequently, one of the
implications is that effective trainers, managers, and
supervisors need to be effective change agents.
One way to manage transfer is to frame it
as an aspect of
change management (Beer & Nohria, 2000;
Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Connor, Lake,
& Stackman,2003; Laird, Naquin, & Holton,
2003; O'Toole, 2010).
Kurt Lewin, a renowned psychologist, is considered
the father of social psychology; he studied
change from a group dynamics and
organizational development
pointof view (Cummings & Worley, 2014). Lewin
developed what is known as force-�ield
analysis, a framework for looking at the
factors (or forces) that
in�luencesituations. Force-�ield analysis evaluates
the forces that are either driving the change

(facilitators) or restraining the change
(restrainers or barriers)
(Cummings & Worley, 2014; Lewin, 1943).
Simply put, from a training perspective, if
restrainers are more potent than drivers, then
transfer most likely will not
occur. Speci�ically, for example, if the
organizational culture is more unsupportive than
not, or if peer pressure is greater than peer
support, thesefactors will
prove to be too dominant for transfer to take
place, even if the trainee is willing and
able. Likewise, with a supportive organizational
environment, transfer may
not be realized with a trainee who is unable or
unwilling (see Figure 8.4).
Figure 8.4: Transfer as change management
1/15/2018 Print
Foodfor Thought: Apply Force-Field Analysis
This case study shows how Eastland Memorial
Hospital implemented electronic health records
(EHRs) and illustrates how driving forces
(catalysts) and restraining forces (barriers) must be
managed. The case study, titled "Overcoming
the Top Five Barriers to EHR Implementation,"
was coauthored by Ted Matthews,CEO of Eastland
Memorial Hospital. It illustrates examples of barriers

or restraining forces to training:
http://www.prognosishis.com/pdf/Overcoming%20Barriers%20
Whitepaper.pdf
(http://www.prognosishis.com/pdf/Overcoming%20Barriers%20
Whitepaper.pdf)
Consider This
1. What would be examples of driving forces
in Eastland Memorial's quest to change
over to EHRs?
2. What would be examples of restraining
forces?
3. Describe what factors will dictate if driving
forces are stronger than restrainers.
http://www.prognosishis.com/pdf/Overcoming%20Barriers%20
Whitepaper.pdf
1/15/2018 Print
Management theorist PeterSenge proposed �ive
characteristics that make up the learning
organization. These key
characteristics include personal mastery, mental models,
shared vision, team learning, and systems
thinking.
8.4 Transfer and the Learning Organization
PeterSenge, founding chairof the Society for
Organizational Learning at the MIT Sloan School

of Management, �irstcoined the term learning
organization. Senge
(1990, 2010) de�ined a learning organization as
an organization where people continually
expand their capacity to create the desired
results, where new and
expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where
thereis collective aspiration, and where people
are continually learning together. He contends
that what
speci�ically distinguishes a learning organization
from a more traditional organization is the
mastery of certain basicdisciplines. The so-
called �ive disciplines
Senge identi�ied are: personal mastery, mental
models, shared vision, team learning, and systems
thinking (see Figure 8.5).
Figure 8.5: The learning organization
Studies have shown that a learning organization
culture predicts a positive learning transfer
climate (Alipour, Idris, & Karimi, 2011;
Bates & Khasawneh, 2005)
and, particularly, that a learning organization—through
the transfer of training—improves its overall
performance outcomes and facilitates an
organization's
competitive advantage (Haskell, 2001; Park, 2008;
Weldy, 2009). A learning organization is
thought to be more effective in training transfer
because it moves
beyond simple employee training into organizational
problem solving, innovation, and learning
(Agbettor, 2013; Ford, 2014; Neirotti &
Paolucci, 2013; Noe,

2012; Reed & Signorelli, 2011). Transfer of
training is supported by each of the �ive
disciplines as described by Senge:
Personal mastery involves an individual's ability to
know what he or she wants and the desire
to work toward that goal. A learning organization
creates
an environment in which members can develop
themselves toward goals and purposes; transfer
of training encourages expertise seeking of
KSAs
(Ackerman, Vokmar, & Volker, 2002).
Mental models are the employee's internal
worldview or paradigm. Learning organizations
are based on holistic paradigms; that is,
the organization is
thought to be a living, breathing organism because
it is �illed with living, breathing organisms
(Boje, 1991; Hassard, 1995). Therefore, in
a holistic
paradigm, the focus is on the process of
transfer, not just the transfer itself.
Shared vision is building a sense of
commitment in an organization by developing
shared images of the future. This process
includes developing the
principles and guiding practices used to reach the
goal. With respect to training transfer,
organizations create shared vision by
involving trainees in
setting goals and training outcomes (Carter, Ulrich,
& Goldsmith, 2012; Smith-Jentsch, Salas, &
Brannick, 2001).
Team learning is geared toward developing
collective thinking skills. These skills enable

members of a group to reliably develop
intelligence and abilities
greater than the sum of the individual members' talents.
Transfer should be framed in the context of
individual performance, team performance, and
ultimately, organizational performance (Lee, Bond,
Scarbrough, Gillan, & Cooke, 2007).
Systems thinking is a way of thinking about
and understanding the forces and interrelationships
that shape the behavior of systems. This mode
of
thinking helps organizations see how to change
the systems moreeffectively by error detecting
and correcting (Argyris, 1999). If we look at
transfer as
part of the ADDIE system of training, we can
assist transfer by better understanding the
ADDIE subsystem, with its interrelationships
and linkages.
1/15/2018 Print
Training programs that embed the principles of the
learning organization have been found to be
more effective. Organizational learning processes include
sharing, dialogue, and a commitment to
expertise. In the long term, learning organizations
cannot be sustained without the presence of
active organizational learning processes.

1. What is an example of a shared mental
model as part of a learning organization?
2. Describe what an organizational culture that
supports organizational learning
initiatives might look like.
One way to illustrate the relationship between
organizational learning and the learning
organization is to use the house metaphor. Think
of a learning organization as a structure
itself, or house, and organizational learning as
the active processes that occur within the
house.
Did You Know? Organizational Learning and the
Learning Organization
Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization
Critical Thinking Questions
Can you have one without the other? As the
metaphor in Figure 8.6 depicts, organizational
learning is a process that works within
the learning
organization's structure.
In the long run, you cannot have one without the
other. Organizational learning initiatives, such as
new training programs or new interventions,
will "die on the vine" if a learning organization
fails to support them. Likewise, simply
claiming to be a learning organization is
not enough; if no
organizational learning is occurring inside, the house
will implode.

Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization
As Figure 8.6 illustrates, organizational learning
and the learning organization are not meant to
be synonymous. In a transfer context,
organizational learning is a
process that includes training transfer (Dermol &
Cater, 2013). Within the process of
organizational learning, training transfer is
facilitated by organizational
members who are committed to sharing, dialoguing,
and problem solving. The learning organization is
the structure—built on personal mastery, mental
models,
shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking—
where those processes can take place (Gorelick,
2005; Senge, 1990, 2010).
Figure 8.6: The learning organization and
organizational
learning
HRD in Practice: Effectively Trained ... Doughnuts!
1/15/2018 Print
As the last employee left the room, Jason began
to review the workshop evaluations; he
suspected it was a hit.

"Yes! All 4s and 5s!" He smiled. "Good deal."
Jason gathered up the evaluations; he then
energetically walked to the of�ice of his
supervisor, Bob
Haskin.
"Bob?"
"HeyJas ... come on in, how'd the training
go?"
"It went great, man ... just skimming through the
evaluations. Mostly 4s out of 5—even some5s
out of 5! They loved it! All the jokes
worked, and
thankfully, the air-conditioning cameon today!"
Jason said, snickering.
"Never mind that—did they like the doughnutsand
coffee?" Bob chuckled.
"I thinkso! Not one doughnut survived!"
"Well, good job, Jason. Now we can check off
Sexual Harassment Training from this year's
training list. Only four more subjects to go.
Remember,
if we don't use thesefunds, we lose 'em! What is
the next topicagain?"
"Team building," Jason con�idently replied.
"Great. Make sure you order extradoughnuts!"
Bob and Jason shared a laugh and a
high �ive.

Consider This
1. Is Bob Haskin's comment regarding receiving training
funds—if we do not use them, we lose them—
unreasonable?
2. In what way is Jason being short-sighted
regarding the success of the training today?
3. Given Jason's focus on the training
amenities,what do you thinkhe would have done if
the ratings were 2s and 3s instead of 4s
and 5s?
1/15/2018 Print
Summary and Resources
Chapter Summary
The framework for training transfer includes
describing the trainee characteristics of
willingness and ability, as well as considering
the training design
and work environment. Within the training design,
two particular theories of transfer are the
theories of identical elements and cognitive theory.
Overall,
assessment of training transfer can be de�ined as
positive, negative, or zero.
Determining who is responsible for training
transfer, the so-called level 3, is important.

Some pointout that responsibility for transfer is
based on a team
effort, including the trainee, trainer, and supervisor;
others believe that although many variables
in�luencetransfer, �inal accountability should lie
with the
trainer.
Understanding and managing the barriers to training
transfer is important, and lack of
reinforcement is usually the number one barrier
to transfer. Using
the change management framework of force-�ield
analysis assists in organizing the driving
and restraining forces of transfer
Studies have shown that a learning organization
culture predicts a positive learning transfer
climate and, particularly, that a learning
organization—
through the transfer of training—improves its overall
performance outcomes and facilitates an
organization's competitive advantage. A
learning
organization is thought to be more effective in
training transfer because it moves beyond
simple employee training into organizational
problem solving,
innovation, and learning.
Assess YourLearning: Critical Re�lection
1. Explain how zero transfer may be the combined
outcome of positive and negative transfer in a
training setting.
2. Describe speci�ic scenarios in which a trainee
has learned something(level 2) but is
unwilling to apply it to the workplace(level

3). What can be done about
a trainee dynamic of able but not willing?
3. Explain the idea that an organization cannot
just claim it is a learning organization; it
must operate in speci�ic ways. Give examples of
what organizations
must do.
4. Give examples of near and far transfer. In what
ways can near transfer compromise far transfer?
Does it matter if this happens?
5. What is meant by the concept of the
trainer being necessary and/or suf�icient
for transfer to occur?
6. What would be an example of converting
a restraining forceto a driving forceas it
relates to training transfer?
7. Explain how unconscious competence
(automaticity) facilitates near transfer.
Additional Resources
Web Resources
For more reading on the transfer solutions in transfer
of learning background:
http://ucs�hr.ucsf.edu/index.php/training/article/transfer_of_lea
rning_a_guide_for_strengtheningsupervisory_performance
(http://ucs�hr.ucsf.edu/index.php/training/article/transfer_of_le
arning_a_guide_for_strengtheningsupervisory_performance)
For more information on self-directed learning:
www.selfdirectedlearning.org
(http://www.selfdirectedlearning.org)

For more explanation of error detecting and correcting in
organizational learning by Chris Argyris:
http://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-learning-in-
organizations/ar/1 (http://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-
learning-in-organizations/ar/1)
For more information on PeterSenge's learning
organization:
http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization
(http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-
organization) and
http://www.slideshare.net/Yuvarajah/cdocuments-and-
settingsyuvadesktoplearning-org
(http://www.slideshare.net/Yuvarajah/cdocuments-and-
settingsyuvadesktoplearning-org)
For information on types of transfer—near versus
far, high road versus low road,and others:
http://www.udel.edu/dssep/transfer/de�initions_of_trasfer.htm
(http://www.udel.edu/dssep/transfer/de�initions_of_trasfer
.htm) and
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/svinicki/ald320/transexamp.html
(http://www.utexas.edu/courses/svinicki/ald320/transexam
p.html)
More on cognitive theory of transfer:
http://www.csulb.edu/~dkumrow/conference/learning_theory.ht
ml
(http://www.csulb.edu/~dkumrow/conference/learning_the
ory.html)
For more on Robert Gagné's classic nine events of
instruction:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/id/nine_step_id.
html
(http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/id/nine_st

ep_id.html)
For more on transfer of training:
http://www.silega.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar
ticle&id=51&Itemid=82 (http://www.silega.com/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=82)
For Kurt Lewin's force-�ield analysis:
http://www.change-management-coach.com/force-�ield-
analysis.html (http://www.change-management-
coach.com/force-�ield-analysis.html)
Further Reading
http://ucsfhr.ucsf.edu/index.php/training/article/transfer_of_lear
ning_a_guide_for_strengtheningsupervisory_performance
http://www.selfdirectedlearning.org/
http://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-learning-in-
organizations/ar/1
http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization
http://www.slideshare.net/Yuvarajah/cdocuments-and-
settingsyuvadesktoplearning-org
http://www.udel.edu/dssep/transfer/definitions_of_trasfer.htm
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/svinicki/ald320/transexamp.html
http://www.csulb.edu/~dkumrow/conference/learning_theory.ht
ml
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/id/nine_step_id.
html
http://www.silega.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar
ticle&id=51&Itemid=82
http://www.change-management-coach.com/force-field-
analysis.html
1/15/2018 Print

Agbettor, E. O. (2013, March). Attaining competitive
advantage through human capital management,
HR Focus, 23. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA326660083&v=
2.1&u=miam50083&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
(http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
id=GALE%7CA326660083&v=2.1&u=miam50083&it=r&p=AO
NE&sw=w)
American Society for Training & Development. (2013).
Stateof the industry report. Alexandria, VA:
ASTD.
Dermol, V., & Cater, T. (2013). The in�luenceof
training and training transfer factors on
organisational learning and performance. Personnel
Review, 42(3), 324–
348.
Ford, J. K. (2014). Improving training
effectiveness in work organizations. London: Taylor
& Francis.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A.
(2012). The adultlearner. London: Taylor &
Francis.
Kopp, D. M. (2006). Trainer self-loathing? Human
Resource Development Quarterly,17(3), 351–357.
Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2012). Proving
the value of HR: How and why to measure

ROI. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human
Resource Management.
Sales Performance International. (2014). Sales
management and coaching. Retrieved from
http://www.spisales.com/SellingStream-Program-
Reinforcement.aspx (http://www.spisales.com/SellingStream-
Program-Reinforcement.aspx)
Senge, P. M. (1990). The �ifth discipline:
The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Stolovitch, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (2011).
Telling ain't training (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
ASTD.
Key Terms
Click on each key term to see the de�inition.
able but not willing (R3)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sectio
ns/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.
1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/section
A moderate state of readiness by the trainee in
which the employee may need an attitudinal
intervention, with the supervisor problem solving
with the trainee to
address aspects of self-ef�icacy, commitment, or
interpersonal skills.
barriers

Obstacles to training transfer that affect the trainee;
not the trainee him- or herself.
climate for transfer
A climate the trainee must perceive in the work
environment in order for training transfer to
occur; includes factors such as level of
supervisor support,
opportunities to practice trained tasks, and
openness to change.
cognitive theory
A transfer theory based on trainees' ability to
retrieve, manage, and deploy learned capabilities.
error detecting and correcting
A theory that views where learning involves
the detection and correction of error; per
Argyris, organizational learning is a process of
detecting and correcting
error, and error is for our purposes any feature of
knowledge or knowing that inhibits learning.

far transfer
The application of learned behavior, content
knowledge, concepts, or skills in a
situation that is dissimilar to the original
learning context.
force-�ield analysis
A framework introduced by Kurt Lewin for
evaluating the factors (or forces) that
in�luencesituations. It evaluates the forces
that are either driving the change
(facilitators) or restraining the change (barriers).
high-road transfer
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA326660083&v=
2.1&u=miam50083&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
http://www.spisales.com/SellingStream-Program-
Reinforcement.aspx
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/
books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sect
ions/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.
14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AU
BUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/b

ooks/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/secti
ons/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.1
4.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUB
US375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/boo
ks/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections
/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/
sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS3
75.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/
AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/f
m/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/s
ections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS37
5.14.1/sections/fm/books/AUBUS375.14.1/sections/fm#

1/15/2018 Print
A process of transfer, linked to far transfer, in
which the trainee must consciously draw on
previous KSAs.
low-road transfer

A process of transfer, which facilitates near
transfer, that occurs when the context is so
familiar or perceptually similar to the trainee
that thereis a re�lexive or
automatic triggering of transfer without conscious
contemplation.
mental models
The employee's internal worldview or paradigm;
here, in the context of the organizational vision.
near transfer
A metaphor for the transfer distance between the
training environment and the application to
the job environment, which in this case means
making the training
environment similar to the job environment.
not able but willing (R2)
A moderate state of readiness by the trainee; thus,

the supervisor might spend more time
explaining and clarifying to the trainee
following the training.
organizational learning
A process that includes training transfer within a
learning organization.
personal mastery
An individual's ability to know what he or
she wants and to work toward that goal;transfer
of training encourages expertise seeking of
KSAs.
self-management
A training method designed to use a trainee's
propensity and level for self-direction.
shared vision
Building a sense of commitment in an

organization by developing shared images of
the future; for example, by developing the
principles and guiding practices
used to reach the goal;created by involving trainees
in setting goals and the training outcomes,
within the training transfer aspect.
situational leadership
Hersey and Blanchard's theory that employees
move through a cycle of development as
a function of their competence and commitment;
without appropriate
leadership, someemployees do not get the
supervisory intervention needed so development
can continue.
stimulate the transfer
A supervisor's posttraining intervention to help
the transfer of training take place when
transfer is not voluntary.
stimulus generalization
An extended concept of the theory of identical
elements in which transfer of general

principles and maintenance of skills are
emphasized; also known as "far
transfer."
systems thinking
A way of thinking about and understanding the
forces and interrelationships that shape the
behavior of systems.
team learning

1/15/2018 Print
Skills geared toward developing collective
thinking skills.
theory of identical elements

A theory that is based on the idea that transfer
of training occurs when what is being
learned in the training session matches what
the trainee will be doing on
the job.
trainee characteristics
One of the threedimensions in training; it
describes how able and willing the trainee is to
apply the training.
training design
One of the threedimensions in training; it refers
to factors built into the training program to
increase the chances that transfer of training
will occur.
training transfer
Level 3 in Kirkpatrick's four-level training
evaluation model; the degree to which
trainees effectively apply the KSAs gained

in a training context to the job.
transfer of learning
A type of transfer in which the focus is on
cognition and knowledge acquisition—underscoring
that not all that is learned is observable;
for example, when a new
customer service agent tries out the newly
memorized sales script on a caller.
transfer trinity
A group consisting of the trainer, trainee, and
manager in which each has a role in
ensuring transfer success; also called a transfer
triad.
unable and unwilling (R1)
An insecure and low state of trainee readiness to
apply the new learning; this suggests a
systemic problem, including the possibility that
recruiting practices
must be reviewed with the human resources department.
willing and able (R4)

A high state of readiness by the trainee in which
the transfer of training is voluntary and a
supervisor might just monitor the trainee to
ensure that workplace
barriers are kept to a minimum.

1/15/2018 Print
7,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,ch07summary&c
ontent=all&clientTok… 1/21
Chapter 7
(E)valuation of Training and Development
Ridofranz/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Differentiate between formative and summative
evaluations.
Use Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation framework.
Compute return on investment.
Explain why evaluation is oftenneglected.
One of the greatmistakes is to judge policies
and programs by their intentions rather than their
results.
—Milton Friedman, Economist
1/15/2018 Print

In this �inal phase of ADDIE, we evaluate
how effective the training has been. From
assessing
any improvement in the KSAs of the trainees to
the �inancial return on the training
investment, the evaluation phase appraises the
effectiveness not only of our prior
analysis,design, development, and implementation,
but also of the training in totality.
Introduction
We seek to answer one overarching question in
the �inal, evaluation phase of ADDIE:
Was the training effective? (See Figure 7.1.) In
particular, we assess whether
we realized expected training goals—as uncoveredby
our analysis phase—speci�ically, whether the
trainees' posttraining KSAs improve not only
their
performance, but also the organization's performance. As
we will see, the process of training evaluation
includes all of theseissues, as well as
deciding which
data to use when evaluating training
effectiveness, determining whether further training
is needed, and assessing whether the current
training design needs
improvement. Ultimately, evaluation creates
accountability, which is vital given the
signi�icant amount organizations spend on
training and developing
employees—approximately $160 billion annually (ASTD,

2013). This signi�icant investment makes it
imperative that organizations know whether
their training
efforts yielda positive �inancial return on training
investment (ROI).
Figure 7.1: ADDIE model: Evaluate
1/15/2018 Print
7.1 Formative Evaluation
Although evaluation is the last phase of
ADDIE, it is not the �irsttime aspects of
the training program are evaluated.When it
comes to training evaluation, we
assess the training throughout all phases of
ADDIE, using �irstwhat is known as a
formative evaluation. Formative evaluation is
done while the training is
forming; that is, prior to the real-time implementation
and full-scale deployment of the training
(Morrison, Ross, & Kalman, 2012). Think
of formative evaluation
as a "try it and �ix it" stage, an assessment
of the internal processes of the training to
further re�ine the external training program
before it is launched.
Formative evaluations are valuable because they can
reveal de�iciencies in the design,

development, and implementation phases of
the training that may need
revision before real-time execution (Neirotti &
Paolucci, 2013; U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 2013; Wan, 2013).
Recall from Chapter 6 that formative evaluations
can range from editorial reviews of the training
and materials—which may include a routine
proofread of the
training materials to check for misspelled words,
incomplete sentences,or inappropriate images—to
content reviews, design reviews, and
organizational
reviews of the training (Larson & Lockee, 2013;
Noe, 2012; Piskurich, 2010; Wan, 2013).
So, for example, we may �indin a content
review that our training is not
properly linked to the original learning objectives.
Or we may conclude during a design review
that because e-learning is not a good �it with
the organizational
culture, instructor-led training is a more appropriate
choice.
Formative evaluations also encompass pilot testing
and beta testing. With pilot tests and beta tests,
we are out to con�irm the usability of the
training, which
includes assessing the effectiveness of the training
materials and the quality of the activities (ASTD,
2013; Stolovitch& Keeps, 2011; Wan,
2013). Both beta tests
and pilot tests are considered types of formative
evaluation because they are performedas part of
the prerelease of the training. For the pilot and

beta testing,
selected employees and SMEs are chosen to
test the training under normal, everyday
conditions; this approach is valuable because it
allows us to pinpoint any
remaining �laws and get feedback on particular training
modules (Duggan, 2013; Piskurich, 2010; Wan,
2013).
1/15/2018 Print
Training evaluation can be broken down into
short-term and long-term assessments. Short-
term evaluations are usually trainee focused,
whereas long-term assessments are focused on
the training itself.
Although levels 1 and 2 are most used and usually
easiest to compile, levels 3, 4, and 5
(ROI)
are deemed to be the most valuable information in
assessing training effectiveness, but they
require complex calculations.
7.2 Summative Evaluation
Whereas formative evaluation focuses on the training
processes,summative evaluation focuses on
the training outcomes—for both the learning and
the
performance results following the training (ASTD,

1152018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintAUBUS375..docx

1152018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintAUBUS375..docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1152018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintAUBUS375..docx

Similar to 1152018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintAUBUS375..docx (20)

More from moggdede

More from moggdede (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1152018 Printhttpscontent.ashford.eduprintAUBUS375..docx